Endangered: U.S. Aid for Family
Planning Overseas

From an article written by Wendy
R. Turnbull as published in Issues
in Brief, a publication of the
Alan Guttmacher Institute and updated
in an interview with Susan A. Cohen,
Senior Public Policy Associate at
AGI

Urgent action is needed
if U.S. aid for international family
planning programs is to be continued.
The new Congress is required to vote
by February 28 on whether or not slashing
funding for international family planning
by one-third is good policy. The last
Congress drastically cut and punished
the international family planning
program, in the name of opposition
to abortion. Ironically, a consortium
of research groups has estimated that
the actions of the 104th Congress
can be expected to result in 1.6 million
additional abortions around the world.

Under the terms
of the law passed at the end of the
last session, the president will submit
a report to Congress by February 1,
specifying how harmful the cuts are
in terms of the functioning of the
international family planning program
and measured in women's health and
lives. If Congress votes to approve
the president's finding, the funding
for the program will be released as
of March 1, otherwise, the funds will
be withheld until July 1, a full nine
months into the fiscal year, risking,
if not destroying the entire infrastructure
of the international program.

Contact your
senators and representatives and urge
them to support international family
planning and women by voting to approve
the presidential finding.

BACKGROUND
The 1994 congressional elections ushered
into the House of Representatives
a formidable bloc of anti-abortion
conservatives. Facing an electorate
that is basically pro-choice, however,
they had few potential targets within
their reach. Foreign assistance became
an easy mark, and the restoration
of the so-called Mexico City policy
became a rallying cry.

The Mexico City policy
was first enunciated by the Reagan
administration at the 1984 United
Nations' population conference in
that city; it was revoked by President
Clinton nearly 10 years later. The
policy deemed population growth a
"neutral" phenomenon; to the extent
it could be considered a problem,
it would be solved by "market forces."
The policy also declared that, henceforth,
the United States would no longer
"promote" abortion worldwide - something
that, in fact, had been prohibited
by law since 1973. The latter goal
would be achieved by imposing strict
new conditions on indigenous, private
organizations abroad - conditions
that could not be imposed on similar
U.S.-based institutions. Under the
Mexico City policy, these overseas
organizations would be disqualified
from receiving U.S. family planning
aid if - with their own funds and
in accordance with the laws of their
own countries - they provided any
abortion-related information or services.

The House endorsed
the reimposition of the Mexico city
restrictions on several occasions
in 1995 but was rebuffed by the Senate
each time. This resulted in a lengthy
showdown between the two chambers.
As a consequence, a second - but equally
devastating - assault by family planning
opponents began to unfold to decimate
the program's funding.

In January 1996, almost
four months into the new fiscal year
and under immense pressure to head
off a third government-wide shutdown,
both the Senate and the White House
were forced to accept a self-described
"compromise" proffered by the House
leadership. As the price for dropping
the Mexico City language, family planning
would be stripped of much of its funding.
First, an overall funding cut of 35
percent - a much deeper cut than that
sustained by development assistance
generally - was imposed. Second, to
punish family planning even further,
an unprecedented and complex set of
funding rules would be imposed. No
funds would be made available until
July 1 - a full nine months into the
fiscal year - and, perhaps most severe
of all, the funds, once released,
could only be doled out in monthly
installments over the next 15 months.

The fiscal 1997 budget
process brought more of the same funding
conditions. However, another test
of the issue was built into the equation:
a congressional vote on a presidential
"finding" as to the impact of the
funding limitations on the international
planning program.

Congress doggedly attacked
U.S. participation in the International
Conference on Population and Development
in Cairo and the Fourth World Conference
on Women in Beijing. In the wake
of their groundbreaking accords calling
for greater political and financial
attention to population and development
issues, the U.S. is failing to fulfill
its commitments. Contributing "our
fair share" to alleviate poverty and
promote better health among developing
societies is a strongly held American
value, one that has driven U.S. international
assistance for many decades. It must
remain so, if our efforts are to succeed
in improving the lives of women.